The last 150 years have witnessed a deepening awareness among the
faithful of the nature and universal mission of the Church. Various
elements have contributed to this awareness: the intention of Vatican I to
promulgate a Document that would contain a comprehensive treatment of the
Church1 (a project which due to
circumstances was never actually completed); the Encyclical Letter
Satis Cognitum (1896)2 with which Leo
XIII intended to re-focus the attention of the faithful on this topic; and
in the same vein, the more profound treatment of the same theme by Pius
XII in his Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis (1943).3

With the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, the Second Vatican
Council dedicated one of its most important Documents to the subject of
ecclesiology and in this way opened up even broader horizons. And
subsequently, the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio offered directives
for the ecumenical movement.

These diverse elements have stimulated within Catholic thought a debate
which has been both lively and enriching, but which has also been
characterized by certain misunderstandings; most importantly, perhaps,
regarding the meaning of the phrase subsistit in (subsists in).4

For instance, there is now a widely held view that the expression
subsistit in was introduced because of the recognition of elementa
veritatis et sanctificationis (elements of truth and sanctification)
present in other Christian communities and therefore with the intention of
weakening the identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic
Church. In order to evaluate this contention we need to examine carefully
the actual intention of the Council.5

The relationship between Christ and the Church is described (in
different ways) in each of the three paragraphs of this number.6 That it
is a reciprocal relationship is indicated by the opening phrase of the
first and the second paragraphs. The first paragraph begins with the
expression UnicusMediator Christus; while at the beginning
of the second paragraph we find the expression unica Christi Ecclesia.
The link between these two singularities is made manifest in a phrase from
the first paragraph which states that Christ through his Church
veritatem et gratiam adomnes diffundit.

The Council then expounds the constitution (internal), the
foundation and the perpetuation of the Church. Christ
constituted the Church as a realitas complexa with two aspects,
one visible and the other spiritual,7
giving it a hierarchical structure. This Church was founded upon Peter and
the Apostles to whom has been entrusted its growth and guidance. This is
the Church that we profess in the creed to be "one, holy, catholic and
apostolic".

This Church exists perpetually8 and
subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and
the Bishops, "although many elements of sanctification and truth can be
found outside her structure; such elements, as gifts properly belonging to
the Church of Christ, are forces impelling towards Catholic unity" (Lumen
Gentium, n. 8).

That these descriptions of the Church of Christ indicate a single
reality clear from the uniformity of the three expressions used in the
text which each point to the same aspect: societas organis hierarchicis
instructa (speaking in general); Petro... ac ceteris Apostolis
(speaking about its perpetuation). The unity of this reality is also
indicated by the phrase Haec Ecclesia (this Church), which is found
twice in the second paragraph. What is being referred to here is the same
reality referred to in the first paragraph, namely, the Church which we
confess to be Catholic in the creed.

It follows that each of these descriptions refers to the Church founded
by Christ, the Church governed by the Pope and the Bishops, the Church
which communicates grace and truth to all, the one Church of Christ which
is the Catholic Church. The subordinate phrase, which begins licet,
simply affirms that the presence of elements of sanctification and of
truth outside the visible structure of the Catholic Church does not
invalidate any of the previous statements.9

Clearly, therefore, for Lumen Gentium, n. 8, the one Church of
Christ is none other than the Catholic Church and it is only within this
context that the term subsistit can be interpreted. To understand
why this term appeared in the text we need to examine the Acts of the
Council.

2. An Examination of the Acts of 'Lumen Gentium'

Aeternus Unigeniti

The remote background to the assertions of Lumen Gentium, n. 8,
is to be found in the initial schema Aeternus Unigeniti. To
interpret this Document correctly two points must be borne in mind.

In the first place the schema states that the one Church of Christ is
the Catholic Church:

In chapter XI of the schema on ecumenism, De Oecumenismo, we
find mention of fratres separati, christiani separati and
christiani dissidentes always in the plural form, and also of
Communitates christianae, either seiunctae or separatae,
again always in the plural form, followed by the affirmation: "In iis
enim elementa quaedamEcclesiae exsistunt ut potissimum Scriptura
Sacra et Sacramenta...".11

Already, therefore, in the preliminary schema the expression
elementa Ecclesiae existed alongside the affirmation Ecclesia
Christi est Ecclesia Catholica. And no one was of the opinion that the
mention of the presence of these elements of the Church of Christ in other
communities was a reason to change the term est.

The process of development from Aeternus Unigeniti into Lumen
Gentium was marked by a number of events, some of them quite
surprising. In this context we are only able to describe those which touch
upon and which are strictly necessary to our theme.

The Development of the Schemas

In the first half of November 1962 Mons. Gιrard
Philips wrote the so-called "Belgian Schema" Concilium duce Spiritu,12
basing it on Aeternus Unigeniti. Subsequently, in the first days of
February 1963 he wrote another schema entitled Lumen Gentium.

In this new schema, finished on 26 February and given to a subcommittee
of the Doctrinal Commission as a basis for the work of the Council,13
the above-quoted sentence from AeternusUnigeniti, n. 7,
regarding the unicity of the Church of Christ reappears, omitting only the
word veram. But the elementa Ecclesiae, already mentioned in
Aeternus Unigeniti, n. 51, 1 and 3, are here placed in a
subordinate sentence introduced by the term licet:

Once again the conclusion is inevitable: the presence elsewhere of
elements of sanctification in no way calls into question the fact that the
Catholic Church is the one Church of Christ. The import of the text is
not, therefore, that the Church of Christ is to be found wherever there
may be elements of the Church, and in the Catholic Church in a more
profound way than elsewhere. Two numbers further on, the affirmation about
the Holy Spirit working outside of the Catholic Church is repeated.15

This revised Schema Lumen Gentium16
was given to the Fathers on 22 April 1963, and on 30 September of the same
year it was presented on the floor of the Council with a slightly expanded
version of the sentence beginning with licet:

After the discussion on the floor of the Council the text was revised.
This textus emendatus  which is decisive for us  was given back
to the Fathers on 3 July 1964 and was again presented on the floor of the
Council on the following 15 September, Number 8 (previously n. 7 of the
earlier text) affirms:

It is very important to note that in explaining the sense of the phrase
subsistit in, the phrase exsistit in is used. It is also
necessary to quote four explanations from the Relatio Generalis on
the individual numbers:

The first refers to the title of the chapter and reads: "alia
ceterum Ecclesia praeter Ecclesiam Christi non exsistit".22

And as far as the Fathers are concerned this Church is the Catholic
Church.

This explanation is surprising, because the emphasized word adsunt one should note that this is the
second time that the verb adesse is used
 refers to the verb in the
subordinate phrase (beginning with licet), which fact does not use
the expression adsunt but on the contrary employs inveniantur.

Meeting of the Commission of 25 and 26 November 1963

Using information contained in the Relatio Generalis we are able
to attempt an explanation for this surprising discrepancy. The Relatio
Generalis shows that on 25 and 26 November 1963 the full Doctrinal
Commission had once again been occupied with the text.26
The archive records of those meetings and the letters of the theologians
present help to clarify the text.27

One month previously, on 28 October, a subcommission had been set up
undertake a revision of the text, which was revised based on the
discussions on the floor in the following manner:

Philips, therefore, wanted to say that the Church of Christ adest
in the Catholic Church while outside of her structure adsunt
elements of the Church. Mons. Philips gives two reasons for the change of
terminology from est to adest, both of which need to be
examined.

He justifies this new vocabulary, in the first place, with the words:
Quia in Aula proposita est. In the discussions and in the
animadversions scriptae, however, the term does not appear;30
in fact, the whole discussion is around the word est, which is
mentioned positively by some and is contradicted by no one. There is no
discussion on this matter.31

We have no alternative than to conclude, therefore, that the change of
the term est to adest was the product of the work of the
subcommission that proposed the new text to the Doctrinal Commission.
Perhaps further study in the archives could throw more light on this
point.

In the second place Philips spoke to justify the phrase adest Ecclesia with a reference to adsunt alibi elementa, even though
the text states elementa... inveniantor. The report that was
presented to the commission gave the same explanation in written form:

Perhaps the term adsunt is used only to express the sense of the
text and not what was actually written (inveniantur).

Following this discussion during the meeting of 26 November many of
those present substituted adest with subsistit in their
personal copies of the text, as is attested in their papers.

The documentation in the secret Vatican Archives about this meeting and
its subsequent discussion is rather limited. We have short summaries and
also a tape recording of the discussion.

The summaries tell us very little: nothing at all about the meaning of
the new formulation. Three points, however, are certain.

H. Schauf wished to substitute adest with est, while S.
Tromp responded by proposing subsistit in. It was Philips, the
chairman of the discussion, who noted the acceptance of the term
subsistit in. The change from adest to subsistit came,
therefore, not from the Bishops but from members of the Commission, in the
same way as the change from est to adest. It is not possible
to identify the meaning that those present attributed to the term
subsistit in.

The tape recording is more informative. It shows that Schauf disagreed
with the term adest because in his opinion it was imprecise.
Immediately Tromp replies:

In his opinion, therefore, the term subsistit in expresses a
property that is exclusive to the Catholic Church.

Returning to the Relatio Generalis of the meeting of 15
September 1884 we are now in a position to propose an explanation: the
justification of the commission that is published in the Acts is the
justification of the earlier text, not that resulting from the
discussions.

The text of the Relatio Generalis still refers to the first
modification (from est to adest). In all likelihood,
therefore, the redactor had not noticed that the last modification
introduced by the Commission (from adest, to subsistit)
should have required a revision of the text of the Relatio
corresponding to the new terminology.

This new terminology was introduced not because of the licet; it
does not contradict it, but rather maintains it explicitly. Rather, it
resulted from the opposition to adest which seemed too imprecise.
The fact that the Relatio Generalis was not revisited has had the
result that its explanation on this point no longer corresponds to the new
formulation of the schema.

In order to complete the picture we must briefly mention that in the
meeting of 30 November 1964 the two most important amendments concerned
subsistit and both were rejected.33

Some Conclusions

Let us summarize the conclusions from our research thus far:

1. The Bishops never questioned the phrase "Ecclesia Christi est
Ecclesia Catolica"; in other words, they clearly believed that the
Church of Christ is identified with the Catholic Church.

2. Attempts to explain or translate the term subsistit in which
do not take into account this affirmation of faith cannot be justified
from the Acts.

3. From the very beginning S. Tromp had defended the full identity of
the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, maintaining and reinforcing
this conviction in the Conciliar Schemas. It is unthinkable that, at the
last moment, he changed his mind.

4. Mons. Philips adjunct secretary to the Commission, wrote in his book
"...there (that is, in the Catholic Church) we find the Church of Christ
in all its fullness and vigour...".34

5. No explanation was ever given for the change from est to
adest, and from adest to subsistit. It is possible that
some saw in the term est the possibility of denying or of not
giving sufficient attention to ecclesial elements in other Christian
communities. But if this hypothesis is granted, then the justification for
the change would be terminological and not doctrinal.

We must now turn our attention to the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio
in order to explain the above-mentioned conviction of the Bishops
concerning the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church.

Analysis of the text of 'Unitatis Redintegratio' and
research into the Acts

At the same time as the Schema on the Church was being discussed the
Council was also working on the Schema on Ecumenism, both being
promulgated together during the same session on 21 November 1964. It will
be helpful to us, therefore, to investigate the Church vision which the
Fathers expressed in Unitatis Redintegratio, both in the final text
and in the preparatory discussions.

The Text of Chapter One of 'Unitatis Redintegratio'

In Chapter One, De catholicisoecumenismi principiis, the
Council lays out the Catholic doctrine of the Church.

After his death and glorious Resurrection the Lord Jesus sent the
Spirit, whom he had promised, to call the Church (the People of the New
Covenant) into the unity of faith, hope and charity. This Spirit is the
principle of unity in the Church. In order to establish the Church, Christ
entrusted to the College of the Apostles the munus docendi,
regendi et sanctificandi. He chose Peter, among the Apostles, on whom
he would build his Church. Christ desires to make his Church grow and
become perfect in unity by means of the Bishops, the successors of the
Apostles, and the Successor of Peter. Thus, the Ecclesia unicus Dei
grex makes its pilgrimage towards the heavenly Fatherland.

It is very significant that the phrase Dei Ecclesia describes
the Church which Christ entrusted to the Successors of Peter and the
apostles. In paragraph 3 this Church is called Ecclesia Catholica
five times.

This one and only Church (cf. nn. 2 and 3), in which is the fullness of
unity willed by Christ (4.1), is the Church which has been entrusted with
all the truths revealed by God and all means of grace (4.5). The phrase
subsisterein is the same as in Lumen Gentium:, n. 8. end means
permanere, as also in Unitatis Redintegratio. n. 13.2.35

These principles put forward by the Council in the first chapter of
UnitatisRedintegratio mirror exactly the doctrine of Lumen Gentium,
8: the Church of Christ is and always will be the Catholic Church.

Discussions According to the Acts

What emerges from the doctrinal part of Unitatis Redintegratio
is confirmed by the discussions which are reported in the Acts. These
discussions about Unitatis Redintegratio correspond in part with
those concerning Lumen Gentium.

But the response of the Doctrinal Commission to the changes adopted in
the first chapter of Unitatis Redintegratio was distributed to the
Fathers on 9 November 1964 and put to a vote the day after, thus after the
discussions about subsistit in.

To the numerous Bishops who thought that the Schema (which had the same
title as the final Document) failed to give a sufficient exposition of
Catholic doctrine, the secretary responded:

To reinforce the point he refers to two expressions in the text, "unicus
Dei grex" (the one flock of God. Unitatis Redintegratio  final
redaction  2.5) and "una et unica Dei Ecclesia" (the one and only
Church of God, Unitatis Redintegratio final redaction  3.1).39
Another three responses insist on the unicity of the Church.40
What is being expressed in these answers is nothing other than the
teaching of Lumen Gentium: "Textus supponit doctrinam in
constitutione 'De Ecclesia'expositam".41

And in fact the Dogmatic Constitution is expressed in exactly the same
way. Having spelled out in the first paragraph of n. 8 the essential
elements of the Church constituted by Christ, it then summarizes them
again in the opening phrase of the second paragraph and thus indicates
clearly the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church:

The significance of the word est is very important; it expresses
the total identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church.
It is clear, then, that neither the Bishops nor the Secretariat for
Christian Unity saw in the phrase subsistit in a change or a
weakening of the 2,000-year-old doctrine of the Church according to which
the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.42

Summary of Conclusions

We are now in a position to complete the conclusions drawn after our
investigation into Lumen Gentium.

6. The phrase subsistit in cannot possibly be interpreted in a way
which would contradict the meaning of est. This is completely clear from
both the opinions of the Fathers and the responses of the Secretariat.

7. There are three possible interpretations of the phrase subsistit in:

 "to be realized in";

 "to subsist" in the ontological
sense of the scholastics;

 "to remain, to be perpetuated
in".

"To be realized in": nobody sees the Church of Christ as a purely
idealistic or spiritual reality. But if it is conceived as a complex
reality, both spiritual and visible, entrusted to the leadership of the
apostles under Peter and his Successors, then the question arises as to
what difference there is between est and subsistit in.

"To subsist" in a Scholastic sense: The scholastics knew subsistere,
but not subsistere in. And subsistere meant for them
exsistere in se, non in alio.43 Does
it mean to say that the Church of Christ exists in itself in the Catholic
Church?

"To remain, to be perpetuated in": S. Tromp, as an excellent Latinist,
knew well that in classical Latin and even more in Medieval Latin this was
the real meaning of the word. And this sense corresponds well to the
doctrine of the Council, according to which all the means of salvation
instituted by Christ are found for ever in the Catholic Church.

We find a confirmation of these conclusions of our research in the
Allocution given by Paul VI to the Council Fathers during the session in
which Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio were solemnly
approved. The Pope affirmed:

The Notification of the same Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith on L. Boff's book "Church: Charism and Power" declares:

"But the Council had chosen the word subsistit exactly in order
to make clear that one sole 'subsistence' of the true Church exists,
whereas outside her visible structure only elementa Ecclesiae
exist; these  being elements of the
same Church  tend and conduct toward
the Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium, n. 8)".47

In its turn the Declaration Dominus Iesus, n. 17, summarizes the
affirmation of Mysterium Ecclesiae.48

The Church of Christ is operative in Christian
Communities (UUS, n. 11)

Another interpretation of the phrase subsistit in has on
occasion been suggested on the grounds of Pope John Paul II's Encyclical
Letter Ut Unum Sint, n. 11, paragraph 3:

From this it is deduced that if the Church of Christ is present also in
other Christian communities, then it does not subsist only in the Catholic
Church. Whoever was responsible for the redaction of this text has in all
probability allowed himself to be inspired by the discussion on
UnitatisRedintegratio.

In an attempt to explain why certain Christian communites are described
as "ecclesialis" the relator of the Schema of Unitatis
Redintegratio writes:

In order to understand this phrase correctly it is necessary to pay
attention to the terms Quasi, tamquam, quamvis imperfecte, aliquo modo,
which are demonstrations of modus loquendi potius descriptivus et
pastoralis.50 This was not included
in the final conciliar text but remains a valuable demonstration of the
extreme caution with which the Secretariat proceeded.

Pope John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint, n. 11.3, does not use the phrase
subsistit in, but "is present and operative". Whoever wants to explain
this expression must remember its conciliar roots. We are dealing here
with a Pope who did not use subsistit in, who wished always to keep us
faithful to the Council, who therefore wanted to respect the intentions of
the Council, whose relator had a very moderate and prudent attitude, and
who used terms like quasi, tamquam, quamvis imperfecte, aliquo modo
to
approach an affirmation, without stating it formally. It is certainly now
the duty of theology to clarify definitively the meaning of this phrase.

Conclusion

The phrase subsistit in is intended not only to reconfirm the meaning
of the term est, that is, the identity of the Church of Christ with
the Catholic Church. Above all it reaffirms that the Church of Christ,
imbued with the fullness of all the means instituted by Christ, perdures
(continues, remains) for ever in the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately in the 40 years since the Council a great many books and
articles have proposed an interpretation of the phrase subsistit in
which does not correspond to the doctrine of the Council. Among the many
reasons that could be put forward for this situation, it would seem that
the most relevant is a problem which the Council left open and which
centres on two affirmations made by the Council with equal clarity:

1. The Church of Christ in all its fullness is and remains for ever the
Catholic Church. Before, during and after the Council this was, is and
will remain the teaching of the Catholic Church.

2. There are present in other Christian communities ecclesial elements
of truth and of sanctification that are proper to the Catholic Church and
which impel towards unity with it.

Why are these elements called "ecclesial"?

One response would be that they are ecclesial because they are proper
to the Catholic Church. This would be true to the teaching of the Council.

An alternative response would be that they are "ecclesial" because they
give to these Christian communities a collective identity and that this
identity merits the name "Church" or that at least the description
"ecclesial". That these communities have a collective identity is certain;
that this characteristic merits the name Church is open to question. What
is intended with the name "Church" and how is it to be demonstrated that
it is theologically correct to apply the name to non-Catholic Christian
communities?

A third response would be to justify the term "ecclesial" on account of
a presence and an action of the Church of Christ. Now, in a proper sense
this is not acceptable because the Church of Christ, that is, the Catholic
Church, in its integrity is not present and operative in the Christian
communities. A partial subsistence in being is a contradiction in terms,
because it would be simultaneously both complete and a partial existence.

However, this could be possible in an analogous sense. If, for
instance, one says that the United Nations has restored order in a
particular country, what we are talking about is not the United Nations,
nor even a part of it, but rather a group of soldiers with "blue helmets"
acting on behalf of the United Nations.

In a similar though not identical way, one could say that the Church of
Christ is operative in the Christian communities because of Christ, in so
far as he is the Head (not the body) of the Church, through his Spirit,
its soul (and not its body), is operative in these communities. Christ and
the Spirit work in them, reinforcing the elements that impel towards the
unity of Christians in the one Church.

Anyone who wants to defend, along with the Second Vatican Council, the
perpetual presence of all the means of salvation instituted by Christ in
the Catholic Church must also be prepared to look carefully at the
problems which the Council left open. And anyone who does this will find
in its teaching clear indications about how to confront and how to resolve
these problems.
___________________________________________________________________________

NOTES

1Schema Constitutionis dogmaticae de Ecclesia Christi Patrum examini
propositum: Mansi 51, 539-553; Schema Constitutionis dogmaticae
secundae de Ecclesia Christi secundum reverendissimorum patrum
animadversiones reformatum: Mansi 53, 308-317. This last schema was
edited by Joseph Kleutgen who sent it to the Deputatio de fide,
which took it no further.

8 As was already indicated in the first part of LG,
n. 8: "...et in perpetuum ut columnam et firmamentum veritatis erexit".

9 The third paragraph of LG, n. 8, indicates that
poverty and persecution in the life and work of Christ will also
characterize the way of the Church. This theme, however, is beyond the
scope of this article.

13 In Enchiridion Symbolorum (Denzinger 
Hόnermann,
Ger, ed.) 1172 it states: "Following on the previous development of
ecclesiology... at the end of the first session a schema which had been
prepared under the direction of Cardinal A. Ottaviani and S. Tromp, S.J.,
was rejected by the overwhelming majority of the Council Fathers". If
this statement is to be kept in its proper perspective, however, we need
to balance it with the facts. As Tromp records: "Ex istis qui in
Concilio sive ore sive solo calamo suam manifestaverunt sententiam,
circa 55 probaverunt schema, circa 40 postulaverunt ut funditus
reformaretur, circa 20 non protulerunt iudicium et 15 egerunt de rebus
particularibus vel non spectantibus".

27 Fr. U. Betti, a member of the subcommission, made no
record in his diary for the days 25-26 November 1963: U. Betti,
Pagine di Diario. 11 Ottobre 1962

20 Dicembre 1965, in: "Lateranum" 61 (1995) [565]299-[639]373.

This text has been used to prove that Vatican II, by using the term
"Church of God", was admitting the existence of a Church larger than the
Church of Christ or the Catholic Church. Now, it is not easy to
interpret this phrase. There was significant resistance to it on the
floor of the Council and the responses of the Secretariat are not clear,
referring to Lumen Gentium and its understanding of the Church (ASCOV
III/VIII 679-680; the responses to Proposals 4-7).

The great difficulty in the text is the fact that St John Chrysostom,
who is being quoted here, was talking about the Eastern Churches within
the Catholic Church before the separation of Eastern Christians, and the
quote therefore proves nothing about the issue that it is cited in
connection with.

Finally, the phrase "Ecclesia Dei" occurs again in UR,
n. 3 (see above The Text of Chapter One of Unitatis Redintegratio),
and here definitely signifies the Catholic Church. So, if the norm is
observed according to which obscura per clara interpretanda sunt,
then the position of the Secretariat in this discussion is clear, beyond
any doubt.